PWrong wrote:Hmm. If Emily were to push a spherinder through Bob's house, Bob would see a sphere hanging in front of him. But the Earth is travelling around the sun at a high speed, so Bob's house is moving as well.
bobxp wrote:Emily's planet would orbit a star. Not the Sun - the Sun is a 3 dimensional star. A 4D planet would have to orbit around a 4D star.
pat wrote:bobxp wrote:Emily's planet would orbit a star. Not the Sun - the Sun is a 3 dimensional star. A 4D planet would have to orbit around a 4D star.
Maybe our sun is a 4D star and we can only see a single slice of it.
Regardless, from the point of view of gravitational attraction, the orbitted item need only be a point. There's no need for it to be 4D.
elpenmaster wrote:bobxp:
if our sun existed in a 4d world, it would have zero 4-d volumxe. however, it would also have zero 4-d masss
Light has 0 mass, yet it has pressure, think about that?
elpenmaster wrote:a square has zero volume, and a tetracube has infinite
elpenmaster wrote:since when is having zero volume different than having no volume at all?
a square has zero volume, and a tetracube has infinite
the topic of infinity was discussed in that one thread that is five pages long
:wink:
bobxp wrote:Anything multiplied by zero is zero, anything multiplied by infinity is infinity. The only special case is that zero multiplied by infinity is one.
PWrong wrote:You can easily say that, but if you try to do calculations for an object with infinite density, you'll still get a contradiction somewhere.
Geosphere wrote:PWrong wrote:Infinity is nature's way of telling you that you've made a mistake.
Not nature's - mathemetician's.
Geosphere wrote:PWrong wrote:Infinity is nature's way of telling you that you've made a mistake.
Not nature's - mathemetician's.
Return to Higher Spatial Dimensions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests